Ten Years Later: Was O.J. Guilty?

[TLK]

I realize there was an ealier thread about this.... but without poll..... I'm interested to see how this turns out....

O.J. SIMPSON TEN YEARS LATER: NBC's Katie Couric and Fox's Greta Van Susteren duke it out.

<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=0 width=230 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.eurweb.com//images/06042004/o_j_simpson(2004-headshot-med).jpg</TD></TR><TR><TD>O.J. Simpson</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>(Jun. 4, 2004) *O.J. hits the limelight again with media wanting in on his personal life after a decade of silence and an array of Tyson-like incidents.


It's been ten years since O.J. was acquitted of the double murder of his wife Nicole and her lover Ron Goldman, yet O.J. Simpson is sure to hit the sensation button with a remark about being angry at his slain ex-wife. In addition, he talks of hopes of starring in a new TV reality show.

"There are times I am angry at her," the former football star said in an interview set to air next week with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Susteren covered Simpson's 1994-95 trial.

Excerpts of the interview, conducted in a Florida hotel and set to air next Monday on Fox News' "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," were released by the cable channel on Thursday.

"There are things that she could be doing with the kids better than I, you know? When, it's emotional stuff, especially with my daughter, I am angry with her," Simpson said of his former wife. "I am angry that she found herself hanging out with the group of -- who are these people?"

Since the families of the murder victims were awarded $33.5 million in damages in 1997, Simpson and his children have retreated into seclusion, living near Miami on a $4 million pension that is exempt from civil court judgments.

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."

He also expressed sympathy for Michael Jackson and basketball star Kobe Bryant -- saying he considers both innocent until proven guilty. Although Van Susteren was the first to land a Simpson interview for the 10th anniversary of the murder case, NBC expects to beat Fox News to the punch with a special "Dateline NBC" edition on Friday featuring its own Simpson interview with Katie Couric that will be taped earlier in the day.

[Suicane75]

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.

[MrBug708]

I remember when the verdict was in, that last day of the trial, all we did in school was at the TV

[sabotai]

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."

In the final episode of the season, he shows up at his ex-wife's house and juice's her and her friend...oh that's right, he already did that 10 years ago.

[TLK]

if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit

[stevew]

This needed to be a public poll.

[TLK]

I voted "no"... so that's why it isn't a public poll...... hopefully everybody else who votes "no" has the balls to step-up..... :)

[sterlingice]

I prefer the guilty, not guilty, innocent polls that were around at the time.

SI

[Suicane75]

I voted "no"... so that's why it isn't a public poll...... hopefully everybody else who votes "no" has the balls to step-up..... :)


You can't honestly believe he's innocent can you?

[TLK]

It depends how guilty is defined......

[Blade6119]

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.

I can only imagine him jumping out at and then chasing down celebs while holding a knife..and after pulling them down and acting like hes going to kill them and saying something like:"I got off once, i can do it again," then be all:"oh, im just playing, you just got JUICED!"

[TLK]

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....

[stevew]

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....


Tim Meadows was funny as hell when he did OJ.

[sterlingice]

I will say....

The funniest SNL skit I can remember is.... what's-his-name (Tim Meadows???) portraying O.J. and diagramming a football play spelling out "i did it", while only wearing one glove....
I remember that sketch. Pure comedy gold. Too bad SNL hasn't been funny like that for nearly 10 years.

SI

[TLK]

an FYI- that sketch is on the SNL 25 year DVD in clipped form.... but still enjoyable

[sabotai]

Another good one was Tim Meadows playing OJ with reporters outside his house with a shovel and money sticking to it. "Show me the money, show me the money." Those sketches were awesome.

[tucker342]

of course he was guilty

[Jon]

You can't honestly believe he's innocent can you?

Voting "no" to a question of "Was OJ guilty" doesn't mean you think he's innocent. WE don't have that as an option in our criminal justice system.

[ice4277]

Van Susteren asked Simpson about reports of his involvement in an upcoming reality show, and he said, "it's a takeoff on something called 'Punk'd,"' the MTV hidden-camera show featuring Ashton Kutcher pranks on celebrities. "It's me doing gags as Juice ... what they call 'juicing' people."


Holy crap does he have balls.
For some reason, the thought of this show makes me sick to my stomach.

[Noop]

No.

[Fritz]

I don't much care

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, the passing of time and my lack of attention to detail back when the trial was going on probably renders this conclusion impossible, but I've always thought that if he didn't do it, the only possible explanation was that his son did it. He would have had a similar blood type, he could have been the shadow someone saw on the front lawn, the way he ran up to the Bronco when OJ pulled into the driveway after the chase, the fact that no one ever focused on him, since it appeared so obvious who did it...I've always had that in the back of my mind.

Maybe I've seen one too many TV movies, though.

[TroyF]

I think he did it, thus my guilty vote, but I think the prosecution screwed up the case, so if I were in the jury box I'd have voted not guilty.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.

[spleen1015]

I voted no because I honestly don't know if he did it or not.

[Maple Leafs]

Tim Meadows was funny as hell when he did OJ.What made that sketch so great was that you had the double whammy. On the one hand, the sketch itself was hilarous. On the other hand, you had the unintentional comedy gold that comes with "the guy on SNL who has to play a celebrity he looks nothing like because he happens to be the only black guy on the cast".

[Axxon]

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.


Outrage
by Vincent Bugliosi

Publisher: Island Books; Reprint edition (April 1997)
ISBN: 0440223822

Read this and tell me your opinion of the prosecution doesn't do a 180. They screwed it up badly.

They NEVER EVEN interviewed the defense witnesses before the trial.

Wonder why they'd ask questions, get an answer then run back to the table looking puzzled?? They had no idea what the answers to the questions they asked were. Basic legal mistake.

That's just the tip of the iceberg but this one puzzled me at the time. The book cleared it up.

[rkmsuf]

What made that sketch so great was that you had the double whammy. On the one hand, the sketch itself was hilarous. On the other hand, you had the unintentional comedy gold that comes with "the guy on SNL who has to play a celebrity he looks nothing like because he happens to be the only black guy on the cast".

I like the one where he's Al and says "You know who I am dammit!"

[Young Drachma]

Greta Van Susteren can thank he TV career to OJ. If it weren't for that trial, she'd be somewhere doing whatever the hell she was doing before she made it on the little screen.

As for whether he did it or not - after all, he was found not guilty - I don't know if we understand all of what happened. With all the botched evidence and essentially every media outlet in America stacked against him, its really hard to know what really was true and what was tweaked to make him look more "guilty" than he was.

At the end of the day, he has the stain of being "guilty by America" meaning he is shamed forever and the guy has himself to blame for that largely. But its been long documented that he's got some serious issues with himself and his perception in the media.

[tongue-in-cheek] The moral of the story is, don't trust "the man".[/tongue-in-cheek]

[Glengoyne]

Voting "no" to a question of "Was OJ guilty" doesn't mean you think he's innocent. WE don't have that as an option in our criminal justice system.OK allow me to rephrase....
You don't for a second think he should have been acquitted, do you?

[Glengoyne]

Admittedly, the passing of time and my lack of attention to detail back when the trial was going on probably renders this conclusion impossible, but I've always thought that if he didn't do it, the only possible explanation was that his son did it. He would have had a similar blood type, he could have been the shadow someone saw on the front lawn, the way he ran up to the Bronco when OJ pulled into the driveway after the chase, the fact that no one ever focused on him, since it appeared so obvious who did it...I've always had that in the back of my mind.

Maybe I've seen one too many TV movies, though.
Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!

[Glengoyne]

Outrage
by Vincent Bugliosi

Publisher: Island Books; Reprint edition (April 1997)
ISBN: 0440223822

Read this and tell me your opinion of the prosecution doesn't do a 180. They screwed it up badly.

They NEVER EVEN interviewed the defense witnesses before the trial.

Wonder why they'd ask questions, get an answer then run back to the table looking puzzled?? They had no idea what the answers to the questions they asked were. Basic legal mistake.

That's just the tip of the iceberg but this one puzzled me at the time. The book cleared it up.

While I haven't read this book, this is something I wholeheartedly agree with. I think the most capable person involved in the case was probably Mark Furman. The prosecution should have been disbarred. I felt the similarly about the original Rodney King trial. I read the summary of evidence after the prosecution finished their case in the L.A Times. It was at least a two full page article. When I finished I said to myself..."there is NO way these guys are going to go down for this".

[Bee]

Surprisingly, the passage of 10 years really doesn't change the fact that I think OJ did it.

[Dutch]

I remember the one about his web site proclaiming his innocents. You had to go to....

{backslash}{backslash}

{control}{backslash}

{backspace}{return}{backslash}

{backspace}{shift}{return}{backslash}{backslash}

{escape}

....but the "i did it" was the best.

[Ksyrup]

Having worked for the government as an attorney, I can tell you that, despite the defense's claims to the contrary, they have infinitely more time and money to spend on cases than the government and their attorneys do. I was involved in a huge, high-profile matter a few years back, and it's amazing how much crap got thrown at us from all angles, and how little we were able to do to respond. Even little things like professionally-made exhibits and such was a luxury for us, and travelling to do depos, etc., was expensive and had to be prioritized.

Mix in a high profile matter, where a bunch of great attorneys are working for the defense (usually for next to nothing, since all they want is their name out there), and it doesn't surprise me that the defense can make even a good set of government attorneys (not saying Clark and Durden were good) look unprepared and incompetent.

[Lucky Jim]

Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!

Ah see now maybe you haven't see enough TV movies. OJ's son could be a genetically engineered clone!

I can't believe the "juicing" show, although I wet myself at the idea, is real. Who's gonna air this?

[Noop]

When they convict the killers of Emmit Till(I think I spelled it wrong but whatever) Then you can have O.J. for those who want to see him in jail.

[Vegas Vic]

I still think that he most likely did it, but here are some excerpts from an article that cast a bit of doubt in my mind:

··· If the crime scene had been the horrific bloodbath described by media reports, why was it that such small amounts of blood were found in Simpson's Bronco?

·· ·If he had made his getaway from Nicole's condo and driven directly home to make certain he caught a scheduled late-night flight to Chicago, didn't it stand to reason that there would have been blood on the vehicle's gas pedal, brake or steering wheel?

·· ·Why, in the wall-to-wall beige carpeting inside Simpson's home, was there no blood left by a man who, just minutes earlier, had stabbed and killed two people?

·· ·In a limited time frame, how had he disposed of bloody clothing? And, assuming he'd done so, why would he have overlooked the pair of socks later found in his bedroom with a single droplet of blood on them? And what of the murder weapon?

·· ·Why, after what authorities assumed was a violent struggle with victim Goldman, did Simpson have no bruises or scratches except for a small cut on the knuckle of one finger? And if the finger had, in fact, been injured during the murders, why was it that there was no cut on either of the gloves Simpson was supposed to have worn?

·· ·Then, the most troubling question of all: If Simpson was wrongly accused, who else might have committed the horrific crimes?

Here's the link to the entire article: Link (http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2001-04-12/feature.html/page1.html)

[Ksyrup]

Yes his son would have had a similar blood type, but NOT THE SAME FREAKING DNA!!
Don't relatives have common DNA? Not an exact match, but something linking them, right?

I'm sure they ruled him out early on, like I said it's just one of those TV movie-type plot twists that has always been in the back of my mind.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm sure they ruled him out early on, like I said it's just one of those TV movie-type plot twists that has always been in the back of my mind.

Check out the link in my prior post.

Jason was never fingerprinted, and it turns out that he has a violent history of mental problems.

That is but one of many things Dear found troubling as his investigation progressed. Why was it, he asks, that unidentified fingerprints discovered in Nicole's condo were compared to 15 others, yet there was never any attempt to match them to Jason? To satisfy his curiosity, Dear has requested copies of all fingerprints taken at the crime scene.

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"

[GrantDawg]

I don't think the prosecution necessarily screwed up the case, I think the police knew he was guilty, went out of their way to make sure he was found guilty, likely planted some evidence, and thus got what they deserved. That, and some questionable prosecution moves, makes it easy, in hindsight, to see why he was found not guilty.
Got what they deserved? Million dollar book deals? He and they should be in prison.

[Ksyrup]

Got what they deserved? Million dollar book deals? He and they should be in prison.
I meant in terms of the verdict. If supply and demand will allow morons to make millions off of the poor job they did at work, more power to them.

[Noop]

You know that is very interesting about Jason.... I have never heard that before... That is wild... I mean man now that you say it seems likely... wow...

[GrantDawg]

When they convict the killers of Emmit Till(I think I spelled it wrong but whatever) Then you can have O.J. for those who want to see him in jail.
That's right. Untill every injustice ever done in history has been corrected, all prisoners should be set free and no criminals should be convicted no matter how guilty.

[stevew]

*snip*
"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"


Okay, if this is true, this is possibly the first thing that has made me even think anyone but OJ did it.

[Ksyrup]

Check out the link in my prior post.

Jason was never fingerprinted, and it turns out that he has a violent history of mental problems.

That is but one of many things Dear found troubling as his investigation progressed. Why was it, he asks, that unidentified fingerprints discovered in Nicole's condo were compared to 15 others, yet there was never any attempt to match them to Jason? To satisfy his curiosity, Dear has requested copies of all fingerprints taken at the crime scene.

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"
That's funny. I've never read that book nor any other stuff on the murders, but have always wondered about the investigation of the son. It's certainly possible that they could have targeted OJ as the killer, and of course, OJ would have had a reason not to come forward about his son, since he would have wanted to protect him, leaving him out of the picture altogether.

[Noop]

That's right. Untill every injustice ever done in history has been corrected, all prisoners should be set free and no criminals should be convicted no matter how guilty.
Hmm no don't take it out of context. The point was people are crying for O.J. to be put in jail for murder but yet no one cries for Emmit... If I had the power I would glady trade you O.J. for Emmit's murders... O.J. beat system and he got off because someone planted some stuff.

[GrantDawg]

Hmm no don't take it out of context. The point was people are crying for O.J. to be put in jail for murder but yet no one cries for Emmit... If I had the power I would glady trade you O.J. for Emmit's murders... O.J. beat system and he got off because someone planted some stuff.
No one cries? I would love it if they imprison the sacks of &%#@$ that killed Emmit Till. Just do a website search and see how many websites there are dedicated to the Till case. Frikin Bob Dillion wrote a song about it. It is not exactly been ignored. And having quilty people walk free is not exactly going to bring justice to those who murdered Till, will it?

[sachmo71]

Who killed Roger Rabbit?

[rkmsuf]

All the comedy provided over the last 10 years is worth it to let the Juice comb the golf courses of Flordia for the real killers.

[Ksyrup]

Who killed Roger Rabbit?
Who killed Charles Fleischer's career?

[Noop]

No one cries? I would love it if they imprison the sacks of &%#@$ that killed Emmit Till. Just do a website search and see how many websites there are dedicated to the Till case. Frikin Bob Dillion wrote a song about it. It is not exactly been ignored. And having quilty people walk free is not exactly going to bring justice to those who murdered Till, will it?
I think you are putting words in my mouth... No not every guilty person should be free walking around but can you blame O.J. that the D.A. blew it? If anyone is to blame for O.J. not being in prison blame the D.A. not the jury because based on what i understand they made their jugdement on the edvidence(sp?)...

[Ksyrup]

I'll never forget that one female juror who said that the domestic violence issue was irrelevant to the murder case. That just about summed up the entire trial for me right there. I mean, it's one thing to conclude that the guy didn't commit the murder based on the evidence, notwithstanding his violent history; it's another to be presented with evidence that the guy had a history of violence toward the victim and yet conclude that the domestic violence evidence was a "waste of time."

What can you do when end up with someone like that on your jury?

[stevew]

What can you do when end up with someone like that on your jury?

Thank GOD if you are the defendant.

[hukarez]

Man...10 years ago? I think the one thing that really ran through my mind at the time was, "...so much for the Naked Gun series."

[Kodos]

Yep. The whole OJ thing effectively ruined my enjoyment of the Naked Gun series. But then, it was fun watching the scene where OJ got shot, banged his head, had his hand slammed, and fell overboard...

I wonder why hasn't someone looked into the son thing more thoroughly?

[Ksyrup]

I wonder why hasn't someone looked into the son thing more thoroughly?
Sounds like they have, but those people only have the ability to go on talk shows and write books, not reopen an investigation. And can you imagine the crap California/LA would take if they even attempted to re-open the case just to re-examine the facts? As expensive as that whole fiasco was, and as quickly as they decided it was OJ, they simply couldn't risk making themselves look any more incompetent than the trial did.

[Glengoyne]

Don't relatives have common DNA? Not an exact match, but something linking them, right?

I'm sure they ruled him out early on, like I said it's just one of those TV movie-type plot twists that has always been in the back of my mind.
Parents and Children have VERY similar DNA. But it is not like you can confuse one for another. Every chromosome has two numbers(calculated by counting repeating patterns of proteins) One number from the mother, one number from the father.

So you have something like

study sample chromosome #1235 12 23

Victim sample chromosome #1235 13 22

Defendant chromosome #1235 12 23

Defendant's Son chromosome #1235 15 23

There is quite simply NO way to miss identify a DNA sample as belonging to a relative(well identical twins being the obvious exception). The other red herring that came up at the O.J. Trial was that the samples had been contaminated. Samples can't be contaminated and yield a false positive...you either get NO match because the sample was effectively destroyed, or you find ANOTHER individual's chromosomes mixed in the sample.


Also someone posted above that O.J. Didn't have any bruising, only a cut on his finger. His own attorneys photographed considerable abdominal and chest bruises.

This guy was dead solid guilty, and yes I will agree that the prosecution was more than out lawyered, they were negligent. There was really NO mitigating evidence other than the "the police framed him" angle.

[Solecismic]

The OJ case served its purpose.

For one brief moment, black people got to turn to us and say, "see, how does it feel..."


As for the son thing explaining the blood evidence, I think people need a basic education in genetics. A father can only pass 50% of his DNA to his offspring. A geneticist could (and did) testify as to the probability that the observed number of genetic markers could be a random false positive.

[Ksyrup]

The other thing is looking at the other side of the story with a critical eye. For example, this passage from the Dallas article linked on the first page:

"Dear says today that Jason Lamar Simpson was apparently never interviewed by investigators. As proof, Dear pulls a copy of a deposition given by Jason prior to the 1996 civil trial in which his father was found responsible for the crimes. In response to questions from attorney Daniel Petrocelli about his ever being questioned about the murders by the LAPD or the district attorney's office, the young Simpson's answers were "No."


Now, that "proof" could very well mean nothing at all. Remember, at this point, we're at the civil trial. OJ's already been tried and acquitted, the State has spent millions of dollars on the trial, went public early on with it's belief that OJ was the killer, etc. There's no way they can go back to another suspect at this point, absent some completely shocking and dispositive smoking gun piece of evidence.

OJ's son obviously wants his dad to win the civil case. So, he lies in his deposition, telling the plaintiff's attorney that he wasn't questioned. Why? Well, doesn't that lend some credence to the argument that the police didn't follow all leads? Sure, it points to him, but OJ's son really isn't risking much, as that doesn't prove anything, and again, he's got to be certain that the State's not going to re-open the case absent some bombshell evidence.

So, isn't it plausible that his son lied, and this investigator shouldn't necessarily rely on that statement as "proof" that OJ's son wasn't questioned?

[Ksyrup]

This guy was dead solid guilty, and yes I will agree that the prosecution was more than out lawyered, they were negligent. There was really NO mitigating evidence other than the "the police framed him" angle.
Here's the thing, though, if someone buys the idea that he was framed, doesn't the blood evidence become irrelevant? So what if it's his? They took some of his blood, put it on a sock, and planted it in his bedroom.

Now, all the defense did was plant the seed that there might have been a cover-up, I don't think they proved it. Although, I still have my doubts. Not that they framed him for a crime that someone else committed, but that they tried to make the case more conclusive than it the original evidence suggested.

I threw the "son" thing out there as a "what if?" hypo, but apparently, some people have taken that idea and run with it, writing books about it and such. I always thought of it as an interesting conspiracy-type theory.

[Glengoyne]

To me. It is simply not reasonable to believe that an entire law enforcement organization worked together to silently "frame" someone for a crime. I say silently because there were no memos, no dissenters. They haven't eve exhibited the ability to work that efficiently.

[Solecismic]

Here's the thing, though, if someone buys the idea that he was framed, doesn't the blood evidence become irrelevant? So what if it's his? They took some of his blood, put it on a sock, and planted it in his bedroom.

Now, all the defense did was plant the seed that there might have been a cover-up, I don't think they proved it. Although, I still have my doubts. Not that they framed him for a crime that someone else committed, but that they tried to make the case more conclusive than it the original evidence suggested.

I threw the "son" thing out there as a "what if?" hypo, but apparently, some people have taken that idea and run with it, writing books about it and such. I always thought of it as an interesting conspiracy-type theory.

Excuse me, Mr. Simpson, but we're doing an experiment and were wondering if you could spare a vial of your blood?

[BishopMVP]

He probably did it, but I don't think the standard of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt was met, I'm glad he was found not guilty and I haven't seen any evidence of him being a danger to society since the trial, so I'm not concerned he's free.

[BishopMVP]

Excuse me, Mr. Simpson, but we're doing an experiment and were wondering if you could spare a vial of your blood?In my town, around 2nd grade, they took the fingerprints of every child, ostensibly for the purposes of helping in case of a kidnapping (where it would only help if the body was found or the kidnappers cut off a finger and sent it back) and now they regularly use those fingerprints on file for any investigation they want. Luckily I was absent that day.

[kcchief19]

Dear's account is very intriguing. If the assertions he makes are indeed fact, he has made a very strong case.

There were always two questions I had about the case, both of which Dear addresses: (1) If the crime was as bloody as suggested by all parties involved, how is it that in relatively short order OJ managed to get home and changed with only handful of miniscule splatters of blood in the Bronco and in his home; and (2) how could OJ have cut himself significantly enough to leave blood at the crime scene without damaging the glove he was allegedly wearing and numerous witnesses on the plane flight including people who shook his hand said he had no cut on his hand that night?

I obviously saw parts of the trial and read accounts, and based on that I don't think I could have voted to convict. The prosecution did such a terrible job that I don't see how based solely on how the case was presented you could think he was guilty by a reasonable doubt.

That's the catch. I think there is a very good probability he did it, but I personally in 1995 couldn't say he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[kcchief19]

So, isn't it plausible that his son lied, and this investigator shouldn't necessarily rely on that statement as "proof" that OJ's son wasn't questioned?When I read the article, that jumped out at me, too. However, the author of the article is the one who used the word "proof," not Dear. It wasn't a direct quote. For all we know, Dear may have pulled out the state as "evidence" and never called it "proof," but the author of the newspaper article called it "proof."

But I agree with your assessment. Jason Simpson's statement wouldn't have credibility with me.

[Draft Dodger]

not a doubt in my mind - he did it.

[Logan]

"It's been ten years since O.J. was acquitted of the double murder of his wife Nicole and her lover Ron Goldman, yet O.J. Simpson is sure to hit the sensation button with a remark about being angry at his slain ex-wife."

I find it funny that they already messed up the facts in the first sentence of the original article. He was found not guilty in October of 1995, making it more like eight and a half years since he was acquitted.

[clintl]

To me. It is simply not reasonable to believe that an entire law enforcement organization worked together to silently "frame" someone for a crime. I say silently because there were no memos, no dissenters. They haven't eve exhibited the ability to work that efficiently.

Investigators can be wrong without being corrupt. Here's a link to a famous local murder case that appears to be solved after 24 years:


http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9578644p-10502286c.html

The notable thing is that the DA has been 100% sure who committed the crime, and actually was on the verge of trying four people for it in 1992 until DNA evidence did not match any of the four. If you read the article, you will see he continued to insist that they were responsible, but had another accomplice who had not been identified. Now the DNA has been identified, and there is no evidence to link him to the four previously charged. It looks very much like he was completely wrong.

I'm not saying that happened in the OJ case. But it does happen.

[Tigercat]

I put innocent, only because I believe he is not as obviously guilty as most think. I would not be surprised if hes innocent, I wouldn't be surprised if he hired someone to kill the two or killed the two with OJ. I am fairly certain that when I look in OJs eyes, he can say he was innocent of the charges and truly mean that. Which means to me, either hes sure hes not guilty in the way he was prosecuted or hes insane. (And I don't beleve hes insane.)

[Axxon]

Hmm no don't take it out of context. The point was people are crying for O.J. to be put in jail for murder but yet no one cries for Emmit... If I had the power I would glady trade you O.J. for Emmit's murders... O.J. beat system and he got off because someone planted some stuff.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15838-2004May10.html

I thought this was really big news about a month ago but I guess it flew under the FOFC radar. I'm not talking about you but no one has picked up on it in response to your post either.

In any case, people haven't forgotten. Far from it. You don't reopen 50 year old cases when you don't cry or have forgotten something.

[nilodor]

I voted "no"... so that's why it isn't a public poll...... hopefully everybody else who votes "no" has the balls to step-up..... :)

I'll step up and say I voted no as well

[Noop]

I voted no

[mystyplk]

The evidence could have been a slam dunk and he still would have been acquitted. Can you imagine an african american juror going back to his home in south central LA and facing his neighbors ? Do you really think his neighbors would greet him or her with open arms ? Self preservation. If the trial was held in Beverly Hills, there might have been a different outcome.

[rkmsuf]

I don't see how you can seriously vote no.

[Antmeister]

Check out the link in my prior post.

Jason was never fingerprinted, and it turns out that he has a violent history of mental problems.

That is but one of many things Dear found troubling as his investigation progressed. Why was it, he asks, that unidentified fingerprints discovered in Nicole's condo were compared to 15 others, yet there was never any attempt to match them to Jason? To satisfy his curiosity, Dear has requested copies of all fingerprints taken at the crime scene.

"My investigation," he writes, "uncovered the fact that the day after the murders...O.J. retained a high-profile criminal defense attorney who specialized in death penalty murder cases to represent Jason Simpson. Why would he hire a criminal attorney to represent Jason, who was not even a suspect at the time?"


I am glad you pointed out this article. The one thing that had always bothered me about this case was that the prosecution was claiming that the whole incident was pre-meditated. What had always confused me about that is if he prepared for this, why would he just then leave evidence around for anyone to find. I mean if you are going through all the trouble to plan it, I don't think you would leave out details such as that. And for years I have always been questioning the cuts on his hands since they weren't found on the glove. I used to argue this with a number of people who could never give me an answer.

And by the way, the interview with Simpson was weak. She gave a number of creampuff questions and I was expecting much more tougher question as she advertised. She never really asked any questions about the spousal abuse and if he was getting any help for that. I still wanted to know if he had any significant leads in the people that he believes may have ousted her and Ron Goldman.

By the way I had voted yes because I have always felt that OJ was somehow involved, whether that is by just knowledge of what was going on or indirectly responsible for the murders. I could be wrong, but I had always felt that way. Besides that, I never thought he was actually the person committing the murders directly.

[Antmeister]

The evidence could have been a slam dunk and he still would have been acquitted. Can you imagine an african american juror going back to his home in south central LA and facing his neighbors ? Do you really think his neighbors would greet him or her with open arms ? Self preservation. If the trial was held in Beverly Hills, there might have been a different outcome.

Ugh no. That is not the case. People seem to forget that not all of the jurors were black. It only takes one juror to make it a hung jury. Plus that is saying that african americans can't be fair and impartial. There was a child in Chicago where a black guy was going after a police officer with a rake. The guy, who was also deaf was shot and killed by a white officer. Guess what, a number of black jurors believed that the officer was innocent because he was abiding by a vague interpretation of the law. That might be the case of a few people (I won't argue with that), but it still has to be a unamimous vote.

[mystyplk]

First of all, I never said that african americans can't be fair and impartial. If I recall, I believe there were maybe four or five african americans on that jury. You must realize that this trial was probaby the most widely covered in modern times. I agree with you that it could have been a hung jury, but I believe that would not have happened because of the length of the trial. The trial in Chicago, as far as I know did not even approach the importance of the OJ trial. The only way Simpson would have been possibly convicted is if the trial was held in a city that was predominantly white, such as Beverly Hills or Brentwood. The jury in that trial could still be deversified, but chances are that the african americans would be from more affluent neighborhoods, where both reside. One way or another, I believe he was responsible for their murders. If you were an african american on that jury, living in Watts or South Central LA, Do you really believe that you would not think about the ramifications if you were to vote him guilty ? Do you really think that no one in your neighborhood would know that you were on that jury? What do you think your friends or neighbors would think about that? I can guarantee that would have been on my mind if I were on that jury.

[rkmsuf]

First of all, I never said that african americans can't be fair and impartial. If I recall, I believe there were maybe four or five african americans on that jury. You must realize that this trial was probaby the most widely covered in modern times. I agree with you that it could have been a hung jury, but I believe that would not have happened because of the length of the trial. The trial in Chicago, as far as I know did not even approach the importance of the OJ trial. The only way Simpson would have been possibly convicted is if the trial was held in a city that was predominantly white, such as Beverly Hills or Brentwood. The jury in that trial could still be deversified, but chances are that the african americans would be from more affluent neighborhoods, where both reside. One way or another, I believe he was responsible for their murders. If you were an african american on that jury, living in Watts or South Central LA, Do you really believe that you would not think about the ramifications if you were to vote him guilty ? Do you really think that no one in your neighborhood would know that you were on that jury? What do you think your friends or neighbors would think about that? I can guarantee that would have been on my mind if I were on that jury.

So what no beatdown if said jury member goes into 90210?

[Antmeister]

First of all, I never said that african americans can't be fair and impartial. If I recall, I believe there were maybe four or five african americans on that jury. You must realize that this trial was probaby the most widely covered in modern times. I agree with you that it could have been a hung jury, but I believe that would not have happened because of the length of the trial. The trial in Chicago, as far as I know did not even approach the importance of the OJ trial. The only way Simpson would have been possibly convicted is if the trial was held in a city that was predominantly white, such as Beverly Hills or Brentwood. The jury in that trial could still be deversified, but chances are that the african americans would be from more affluent neighborhoods, where both reside. One way or another, I believe he was responsible for their murders. If you were an african american on that jury, living in Watts or South Central LA, Do you really believe that you would not think about the ramifications if you were to vote him guilty ? Do you really think that no one in your neighborhood would know that you were on that jury? What do you think your friends or neighbors would think about that? I can guarantee that would have been on my mind if I were on that jury.

First of all, where did you get the information that the said jurors resided in Watts or South Central? I lived in LA at the time the verdict was given and there was no pressure for me to change just because I had a differing opinion. In fact, it was down the middle among blacks at the workplace. Simpson was able to get off because he was rich, regardless of whether one thinks he is innocent or not. His defense did a good job and based on the things that the jury saw, it would be hard to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Antmeister]

So what no beatdown if said jury member goes into 90210?

Good question.